GDC 2007: The Evolution of the RPG at 1UP

[Diogo Ribeiro]

<a href=http://www.1up.com/>1UP</a> has some <a href=http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3157782>coverage</a> on this year's <a href=http://www.gdconf.com/>Game Developers Conference</a>, and of a panel in particular that had Peter Molyneux of Lionhead Studios, Ray Muzyka of Bioware and Hironobu Sakaguchi of SquareEnix discussing the evolution of what they do worst, the RPG. Despite the feeling it's made to promote their upcoming Xbox 360 titles, it's still a sad, somewhat out-of-touch collection of developer rants.
<blockquote><b>On non-linear gameplay and character customization:</b>

The question of non-linear gameplay sparked the first hint of disagreement, as Molyneux and Muzyka have rather different ideas about its merit. While Molyneux isn't much of a fan -- "Multiple branches are great, but there's a snag: You have to be careful that people don't think they've made the wrong choice." After all, he says, much of the appeal of story-driven games is sharing the best moments with your friends. Muzyka, however, begs to differ; in his mind, it's much more interesting for each player to take away a unique experience, as the sensation that they've shaped the story adds emotional impact. (Not to mention replay value.) Still, he notes that actually implementing this style of storytelling is "damn hard," as it necessitates the creation of a great deal of addition content, all of which must be brought to an equal standard of quality. And each branch of the story must be made to feel like it's the "right" decision, to avoid Molyneux's concerns. (For his part, Molyneux was having none of it, although he did mention that this was the crux of the good/evil dichotomy in Fable.)

Sakaguchi's thoughts were less heated and not terribly exciting coming from the creator of Final Fantasy: He prefers a grand, cinematic experience that allows players to feel like they're taking part in a movie. Which is to say, non-linear is probably not his ideal.

As for character customization, it's intrinsic to each creator's games -- and something Molyneux has been contemplating recently even outside the boundaries of Fable. He greatly prefers customization through action, within the context of the game, rather than at a bland startup chargen screen. </blockquote>Sakaguchi seems to the only guy who actually played the games he developed.

Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.1up.com/">1UP</A>

 

[Ion Flux]

I'm sure I'm not the first person to say this (I'm just too lazy to search the forums), but there are obvious parallels between the game industry and the film industry.

Every now and then, major developers/publishers will put out a truly good game, but for the most part, mainstream products suck. It's far more likely that developers with smaller budgets and better ideas will make the good RPGs of the future. It's not that good products wouldn't sell lots of copies, it's just easier to follow a simple formula and get decent returns on your investment.

 

[Volourn]

"It's far more likely that developers with smaller budgets and better ideas will make the good RPGs of the future."

Bullshit. Smmaller budgedt games tend to have 'nothing new' ideas as well. Their production values, writing skillz, and game balancing is likely 1 million times worse. The exceptions to this rule just prove it.

Just look at the indy games being hyped. AOD, btw, is one of those exceptions that prove the rule.

 

[Lumpy]

The group consensus is that RPGs are differentiated from other genres (which have increasingly incorporated RPG elements over the years) by the emotional impact of the characters and stories; the evolution of in-game graphics is therefore a great boon, as more detailed graphics creates a more powerful emotional connection.

If RPGs are all about stories and characters, then what the hell are Adventure games about?
Oh, right, Adventure games are also RPGs because you play a role.

 

[Ion Flux]

"It's far more likely that developers with smaller budgets and better ideas will make the good RPGs of the future."

Bullshit. Smmaller budgedt games tend to have 'nothing new' ideas as well. Their production values, writing skillz, and game balancing is likely 1 million times worse. The exceptions to this rule just prove it.

Just look at the indy games being hyped. AOD, btw, is one of those exceptions that prove the rule.

Dude, I know it's difficult for you so I'll type slowly.

Notice how I said: "...developers with smaller budgets and better ideas will make the good RPGs of the future."

Your comments are reflexively antagonistic and thus, completely bypass your brain.

 

[Volourn]

And, big developers with 'better ideas' will develop better games too. I ignored that part because it's a shameless add on that adds nothing to the convo.

 

[Ion Flux]

And, big developers with 'better ideas' will develop better games too. I ignored that part because it's a shameless add on that adds nothing to the convo.

Acutally, you do have a point. But I never said big budget outfits can't make good games. My original comment was only related to trends toward soulless, boring titles that tend to come from major developers. Like movies.

 

[Volourn]

Souling, boring titles are not the realm of high budgeted games (or movies or tv shows). There's lots of low budgets games, movies, and tvs (heck, even books) that fit well into that mold.

You made it sound like it was defacto that big devlopers = soullessness and small devlopers = soulfoul. That's balony. Do a search on the net about the majority of indy games. They are full of empty souls.

Whatever s'oul' is supposed to mean here. L0LLERZ

 

[doctor_kaz]

I t doesn't seem like any of these guys should be talking about the evolution of RPG's, seeing as how RPG's (single player at least) haven't evolved in about seven or eight years, other than graphics. The best games ever in the genre came out in the late '90's and early 2000's and haven't been touched since then. The genre is worse than being stagnant. It has moved backwards. The trend for the past five years has been to strip away content so that the games can be dumbed down, not to evolve them. The primary driver for RPG's since about 2002 or so has not been making them better, but making them simpler and sexier so that they are less intimidating to non-RPG fans.

 

[Ion Flux]

Souling, boring titles are not the realm of high budgeted games (or movies or tv shows). There's lots of low budgets games, movies, and tvs (heck, even books) that fit well into that mold.

You made it sound like it was defacto that big devlopers = soullessness and small devlopers = soulfoul. That's balony. Do a search on the net about the majority of indy games. They are full of empty souls.

Whatever s'oul' is supposed to mean here. L0LLERZ

I think you mean,"...not the exclusive realm...", and if that's the case then I agree.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I generally prefer watching stuff on the Independent Film Channel to Deal or Friggin' No Deal. But that's just me.

And by soul, I mean what Morrowind didn't have.

 

[Texas Red]

I'm sure I'm not the first person to say this (I'm just too lazy to search the forums), but there are obvious parallels between the game industry and the film industry.

Every now and then, major developers/publishers will put out a truly good game, but for the most part, mainstream products suck. It's far more likely that developers with smaller budgets and better ideas will make the good RPGs of the future. It's not that good products wouldn't sell lots of copies, it's just easier to follow a simple formula and get decent returns on your investment.

Except in the film industry the actually good movies sweap away all of the awards. How many times have we seen awards where shit like Oblivion is in every category(best story, best writing, best voiceacting etc.), while less known, but still good games are left outNWN 2 wasnt even mentioned) In the film industry the sales are not dependant on critics in any way. There is no corruption circle present.

The genre is worse than being stagnant.

Oh how I wish the genre would be stagnant. Imagine getting several RPG a year that follow the Fallout formula. Would we whine then?

 

[HardCode]

big devlopers = soullessness and small devlopers = soulfoul

QFT, except the first grade spelling.

 

[Brother None]

I'm sure I'm not the first person to say this (I'm just too lazy to search the forums), but there are obvious parallels between the game industry and the film industry.

Parallels, sure, but the gaming industry is not nearly as healthy or mature as the film industry has become...hell, the whole development of the film industry if compared directly to gaming industry shows more long-term rationalisation, investment and the understanding of complete markets over mainstream.

Gaming's not there yet, not by a long shot.

AOD, btw, is one of those exceptions that prove the rule.

Based on your extensive playing experience of the game?

Anyway, back on topic, 1up's coverage of GDC is just full of gems;
12:17: "I'm really hard to work with," says Peter. Great gaming moments from the man himself: FF7 (ending), ICO, and Zelda. You know, basically all the role-playing games you think are totally awesome (well, unless you're a jaded nerd).

 

[Volourn]

"Based on your extensive playing experience of the game?"

Yes.

 

[Bradylama]

You know, basically all the role-playing games you think are totally awesome (well, unless you're a jaded nerd).

Or 1up's own Jeremy Parish whose hatred of Final Fantasy 7 is legendary.

Then again they just pay him to review handhelds.

 

[zioburosky13]

Muzyka, however, begs to differ; in his mind, it's much more interesting for each player to take away a unique experience, as the sensation that they've shaped the story adds emotional impact. (Not to mention replay value.)Still, he notes that actually implementing this style of storytelling is "damn hard," as it necessitates the creation of a great deal of addition content, all of which must be brought to an equal standard of quality. And each branch of the story must be made to feel like it's the "right" decision, to avoid Molyneux's concerns. (For his part, Molyneux was having none of it, although he did mention that this was the crux of the good/evil dichotomy in Fable.)

*cough* Arcanum *cough*

 

[Lumpy]

I t doesn't seem like any of these guys should be talking about the evolution of RPG's, seeing as how RPG's (single player at least) haven't evolved in about seven or eight years, other than graphics. The best games ever in the genre came out in the late '90's and early 2000's and haven't been touched since then. The genre is worse than being stagnant. It has moved backwards. The trend for the past five years has been to strip away content so that the games can be dumbed down, not to evolve them. The primary driver for RPG's since about 2002 or so has not been making them better, but making them simpler and sexier so that they are less intimidating to non-RPG fans.

Preaching to the choir?

 

[The Rambling Sage]

You made it sound like it was defacto that big devlopers = soullessness and small devlopers = soulfoul. That's balony. Do a search on the net about the majority of indy games. They are full of empty souls.

The point is that those good developers in the indy scene have shown what they can do without big funding, and so they have shown themselves deserving of a backing they are not going to get. If they suck, they suck. If they rule, they rule. Their design does, their ideas do, the soul of their games does.

Those big developers out there making good games? I do not think no one around here wants them dead. But they are a minority. Kill all those other suckers for whom an original idea or a meaningful soul are out of reach and give the funding to the indies that have already prove themselves up to the challenge of making a game not for idiots.

And, finally, they cared enought about their game, be it good or bad, to make it on their own. That, i think, deserves respect, and shows a soul and an intent other than make money, even if not always an intelligence or skill to match.

That cannot be said about most big guys in the industry.

Except in the film industry the actually good movies sweap away all of the awards.

Take me to this world of beauty and fantasy where you live, please. I like it.

 

[Volourn]

"And, finally, they cared enought about their game, be it good or bad, to make it on their own. That, i think, deserves respect, and shows a soul and an intent other than make money, even if not always an intelligence or skill to match."

"That cannot be said about most big guys in the industry."

Except you ar emissing one imporant fact. Most of the larger develoeprs also started small. Everyone here seems to go on the nonsensical belief that large devloeprs (or any company) was always big. That's simply not true. Most of 'em started of small, liked role-playing, and started making them as part of that dream. Money was motivation; but their motivation is they lvoed games.

BIO, who gets a lot of flack, ar eone such company. The owners are fuckin' doctors who loved games so much they changed the entire focus of their lives to making games. They weren't big from the start. They earned that by making games people wanted to play 9and, that they wnated to play).


R00fles!

 

[Elwro]

Great gaming moments from the man himself: FF7 (ending), ICO, and Zelda. You know, basically all the role-playing games you think are totally awesome (well, unless you're a jaded nerd).[/i]

What's ICO?

 

[gc051360]

Except in the film industry the actually good movies sweap away all of the awards

No.

 

[suibhne]

Great gaming moments from the man himself: FF7 (ending), ICO, and Zelda. You know, basically all the role-playing games you think are totally awesome (well, unless you're a jaded nerd).[/i]

What's ICO?

ICO (for PS2) is one of the few truly innovative games produced in the last 6 or 8 years. The same developers more recently released Shadow of the Colossus.

 

[kingcomrade]

It wasn't really innovative, it was a platformer like Zelda. What made it so cool was the specifics: the art design and the puzzles and such.

 

[Jasede]

One of the very few things that justify having a console, ICO and Shadow of the Colossus, a horribly cruel game.

 

[Krafter]

ICO (for PS2) is one of the few truly innovative games produced in the last 6 or 8 years. The same developers more recently released Shadow of the Colossus.

I haven't played Shadow of the Colossus, but Ico kicks all kinds of butt. Absolutely fabulous game.